So, can my wife legally use my new magazines? The day I got my FS92, she tried it and like it and took it and I had to buy myself one.... seriously, the woman has what CNN would call an arsenal but has never bought a gun in her life but that’s another story.

Can she use my new mags or can I tell her she has to use her own darned magazines?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosdanger

Dude give it up. The election is was months ago. Hillary is toast. Her political career is over.

So, can my wife legally use my new magazines? The day I got my FS92, she tried it and like it and took it and I had to buy myself one.... seriously, the woman has what CNN would call an arsenal but has never bought a gun in her life but that’s another story.

Can she use my new mags or can I tell her she has to use her own darned magazines?

Did you forget about the $20 she put in your pocket for a couple mags after you bought them? Unless you don’t want her to use it, then it’s what $20??

So, can my wife legally use my new magazines? The day I got my FS92, she tried it and like it and took it and I had to buy myself one.... seriously, the woman has what CNN would call an arsenal but has never bought a gun in her life but that’s another story.

Can she use my new mags or can I tell her she has to use her own darned magazines?

So why are we even asking stupid questions like this?? Do you really think anyone is going to bust you for not following exact letter of the law??

CA laws on community property and on guns have no clear intersection. It is certainly true that neither Feds nor CA have a way to record more than one individual as a gun owner - DROS and 4473 each have just one space.

__________________

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell

I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.

CA laws on community property and on guns have no clear intersection. It is certainly true that neither Feds nor CA have a way to record more than one individual as a gun owner - DROS and 4473 each have just one space.

Magazines aren’t recorded or restricted to specific individuals in an authorized purchase sense that DROS authorizes sale completion for firearms. Magazines are just general property. You can put them in an airline checked baggage with no declaration or any locked transport condition requirements, etc.

True without a test case it might be unclear, but magazines are no different as to being community property immediately at the sale as would be any other now-banned item for sale such as an old side drop baby crib.

True without a test case it might be unclear, but magazines are no different as to being community property immediately at the sale as would be any other now-banned item for sale such as an old side drop baby crib.

Perhaps that explains all the laws prohibiting buying baby cribs?

No, CA treats magazines as different from other objects.

There is an exception from the crime of lending (32310) at 32415

Quote:

32415.

Section 32310 does not apply to the loan of a lawfully possessed large-capacity magazine between two individuals if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The person being loaned the large-capacity magazine is not prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 29610), Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800), or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9 of this title or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing firearms or ammunition.

(b) The loan of the large-capacity magazine occurs at a place or location where the possession of the large-capacity magazine is not otherwise prohibited, and the person who lends the large-capacity magazine remains in the accessible vicinity of the person to whom the large-capacity magazine is loaned.

but it is not based on any version of 'community property'.

__________________

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell

I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.

CA laws on community property and on guns have no clear intersection. It is certainly true that neither Feds nor CA have a way to record more than one individual as a gun owner - DROS and 4473 each have just one space.

Still, if I had a very valuable gun collection and was getting a divorce, the odds of the judge not ruling the collection was community property would be practically zilch since all but the ones I would sell at a Police Buy Back were bought with Community funds.

Once I consult with an Estate planning attorney, I might ask him a less pointed question regarding firearm ownership and watch his eyes bug out.

__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

You are correct. There is no exception to the community property presumption for firearms or shooting accessories. Non-shooting spouses in a dissolution will frequently say, "keep them," but not without some offset for their value.

There is no reliable method of determining whose a magazine was within a marriage union other than direct owner attestation, “this magazine is mine”. At any time during the freedom week transfer by gift could or did occur.